It was expressly stated that this research order concerned a so-called fundamental research."
I shall skip no. 6 or at least no. 6. On page 3 of the document at the top I quote: " I never noticed that there was any thorough control, examination of tho protocols, or, even interference in respect of the setting up of tho experiments. I always gave Dr. BeckerFreyseng the opportunity to get in touch with tho experts, but here also I never noticed that more than general scientific interest was shown.
"7.) The reports wore submitted in the form of short, scientific reports. The reports never contained any details about the experiments."
The rest of No. 7 and No. ' I recommend to the attention of tho Tribunal and I shall quote No. 9:
" I cannot imagine at all that a representative of the Medical Inspectorate could have given me any instructions in such a special technical question concerning the carrying out of the order for research."
Then the witness describes what support he got from tho Medical. Inspectorate and I should like to quote one sentence from this paragraph at the bottom of the page:
"There were never negotiations about the control or supervision of the research order; this would also have been quite unusual."
I do not want to quote any more from this document. I merely refer to the fact in No. 10 - the witness says control could have been exercised by a specialist, that is a pharmacologist - no ordinary medical officer. It bears the signature of the witness and was notarized by a Notary Public in Heidelberg on 2 May 1947.
Then there is attached to this document a copy of an accounting If Mr. Hardy has an objection to my submitting this copy I shall withdraw this part of the document. I do not attach any great value to it. I attached it merely because tho witness refers to this attachment in his document.
MR. HARDY: I have no objection, your honors, to the admission of the attachment but unfortunately I do not have a copy of the attachment.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no copy of the accounting in the Document Book before me.
DR. TIPPS: Then I shall withdraw it, Mr. President.
DR. TIPPS: The next document is No.71, on page 32, the exhibit will be 49. This is an affidavit by University Professor Dr. Hubert Meessen, of tho 29 April 1947. This affidavit describes how he got a research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate. He says in paragraph one, 2 sentences after the beginning:
"This research order consisted of a purely financial support of the further work on a subject which I had already begun in 1936."
Then tho witness describes how this assignment was issued. I can skip this part. The witness continues: " I never received any instructions as to the manner in which my order should be carried out. The research subsidy corresponded entirely with the assistance given by scientific organizations or pharmaceutical industries." The rest I recommend to the attention of the Tribunal.
The next document is No. 72 on page 375. I assign to it Exhibit No. 50. It is an affidavit from Physiological Chemical Institute Freiburg dated 2 May 1947 by Professor Joseph Kapfhammer. He also had an assignment from tho Medical Inspectorate. He says that unfortunately ho cannot give any exact dates because all his records were destroyed during the War. I shall quote from it, the last paragraph on the first page:
"I obtained the research assignment through tho kind mediation of my colleague Prof. Buechner, who, at that time was in charge of the Medical Research Institute for Aviation in Freiburg. The theme orginated solely from my own suggestion, as I had worked in this very field of metabolism of the liver for years."
Then the witness says that he had worked on this field years before that and that he was not merely working for the Medical Inspectorate but was working in the interest of science in general. In the 2nd paragraph on the second page of the document I should like to quote:
"I was in no way subordinated to tho Medical Inspectorate by receiving this assignment. On the contrary, I had complete freedom of action; I was never given orders with regard to the progress of my work. No one ever checked the work I had done. I was restricted in one point only; I was to submit intermediate reports every three months but I treated this point so liberally that I delivered a short report concerning the state of my research work only 10 -12 months at tho most."
I can skip the next few sentences and I quote:
"Thus, the Medical Inspectorate did not exert any pressure whatsoever with regard to the research assignment so that I was able to work completely unrestrained and without being checked in any ways."
The document is signed 3 May 1947 by a notary in Freiburg i/ Breisgan.
DR. TIPP: The next two documents, Mr. President, No. 73 and No. 74, deal with a different subject. They deal with Professor Haagen. I do not believe I should offer these documents at this point because Professor Haagen is going to appear as a witness, and will be able to testify as to how long he was on leave from the Luftwaffe. If it should prove necessary in the course of the case I may offer these documents later.
Mr. President, I have now completed the presentation of evidence for the defendant Becker-Freyseng. All that remains is the examination of Professor Haagen, for which the Tribunal has already given its consent after the conclusion of the sea-water case, and in this connection I should like to offer a few more documents which I have received in the meantime, and which generally refer to Professor Haagen's work.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents referred to by counsel for defendant Becker-Freyseng may be offered later.
Has the Prosecution any rebuttal evidence to offer?
MR. HARDY: Not at this time, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. PELCKMANN: Dr. Pelckmann for defendant Dr. Schaeffer.
With the permission of the Tribunal I should like to call defendant Dr. Schaefer to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Conrad Schaefer will take the witness stand.
DR. PELCKMANN: Before the witness takes the oath I should like to submit a few documents which deal with the personality of Dr. Schaefer. These are documents about the political attitude of the defendant and his scientific qualifications. It is necessary to offer these documents, because the prosecution has made the assertion, for all the defendants, in considerable detail to explain the charge of conspiracy, that they were obsessed by Nazi idealogy; that this idealogy affected the medical men, especially the younger ones; that during their studies they were trained in Nazi Idealogy; that they belonged or had to belong to various Nazi organizations, and similar things.
Without going into the question of whether this argument is necessary for the charge of conspiracy I shall prove for the defendant Schaefer, at least, that these assertions are not true of him. I shall deal in these affidavits with another charge, that is that this Nazi idealogy reduced the scientific work of the defendants to a low and that on the basis of this Nazi idealogy the defendants, including the defendant Schaefer, were unable to perform experiments such as form the subject of the indictment here. I shall disprove these assertions too through these affidavits.
First, I should like to offer Document Schaefer No. 1. It is the German No. 20, the English Document No. 1. I was forced to introduce two different series of numbers, because by accident the numbering was not carried out in the same way in the German and English documents in the translation, and I shall always have to give different page numbers of German documents and English documents -
English Document I, German Document 20, is to have Exhibit No. 1. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Hubertus Strughold. I shall read all of it.
"Dr. Konrad Schaefer was assigned as a junior grade or assistant physician to the Research Institute for Aviation Medicine, Berline. Up to the end of 1943 -- at which time I went to Silesia to stay -- I frequently had opportunities to talk to him and therefore I am in a position to give information on his scientific capability and his personality.
"Scientific capability: Dr. Schaefer is a serious scientist who applied his thorough knowledge of the most modern methods of biological science to all problems with which he was confronted. In this manner he also carried out the scientific research assignments which he received from the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate. He also handled his investigations on the physiology of thirst in this way, and it was due to this that his experiments on the development of Zeoloth for making sea water potable were crowned with success.
He was not afraid of performing experiments on himself, and in 1942 he and two of his female assistants conducted a three-day thirst experiment. This experiment belongs in the category of heroic medical selfexperiments and the three participants may be justly proud of it.
"Personality and political views: Dr. Schaefer is a very humane and socially minded man, a good friend and comrade and a modest character. He is very intelligent. In the Third Reich he was unlucky in his university career, as he was a pronounced antagonist of National Socialism. I had repeated examples of his views when I discussed politics with him. It was also due to his anti-Nazi views that he had to go into industry, where he worked successfully as a scientific department chief.
"As to his views on experiments on humans, I know from a conversation which I had with him in 1942 that he was decidedly against experiments the voluntary nature of which could be doubted for any reason at all. I therefore feel that, as far as I can judge from here, Dr. Konrad Schaefer cannot be involved in the matters now being pleaded in Nurnberg by anything but an unfortunate constellation."
Document No. 2 on page 3 will be Exhibit 2. It is an affidavit by Dr. Helmut Wuest, dated 23 January 1947. It reads:
"I have known Dr. Med. Konrad Schaefer, born 7 January 1911, for many years. We both studied at the same high school (humanistisches Gymnasium) in Landau/Pfalz, where we graduated in 1930. We were together for nearly all the semesters of our medical studies at Heidelberg, Innsbruck and Berlin universities. We were not merely chance school fellows and study companions, but were also close friends. I therefore have exact knowledge of Dr. Schaefer's work outlook and conception of life. Until 1940 when our paths were divided by professional duties, his political attitude was clear and distinct. It was in opposition to National Socialism. I know that up to this time Dr. Schaefer did not belong to the Party or to any of its organizations.
In all our political discussions he never failed to express his stark opposition to National Socialism. Shortly before taking our State Medical Examination in Heidelberg in 1935, considerable difficulties were created for us both by the National Socialist Students' Council which questioned our admissibility to the State Examination. The official charge against us was based on the fact that we did not belong to the Party or to any of its organizations or to the National Socialist Students' League."
As Exhibit No. 3 I offer English Document 3, German Document 25, English page 45, German page 52 and 53. It is an affidavit by Dr. Helmut Reichel from Bad Pyrmont:
"I met Dr. Schaefer through Prof. Juergens when I worked with them both before the war in the Nature Health Clinic in Berlin. I had no official connection with Dr. Schaefer. Through my friendship with Prof. Juergens, based on many years of joint work, I was well informed about the internal affairs. Prof. Juergens, as a world-famous hemotologist, had principally scientific interests. He regarded the political point of view forced upon his subordinate colleagues in the clinic as false and irksome. In this connection Dr. Schaefer was mentioned to me as an exception and as a man who, although possessed of scientific abilities, did not approve of the political tendency at that time. Prof. Juergens was therefore always afraid of losing him.
"When Dr. Schaefer had to leave the Clinic, his departure was described to me as a confirmation of our fears.
"After all these years I cannot remember details about discussions which took place then. But I remember Dr. Schaefer as a man who dedicated himself to serious and conscious responsible research, and who went into private industry because his path to the State Clinics was barred for political reasons."
I should like to stop there.
As Exhibit No. 4, I shall offer English Document No. 4, German No. 25, pages 6 to 8. This is an affidavit by Dr. Hans Bruns:
"I make the following affidavit:
"I made the acquaintance of Dr. Konrad Schaeffer in 1935 at the Hydrotherapeutic University Clinic, Berlin, Marwikstr. 2. be were both working there as medical internees and later as voluntary physicians under Professor Rudolf Juergens. Since Professor Rudolf Juergens an internationally renowned hematologist -- a disease of the blood investigated by him on the Aland Islands was named after him "Thrombasthenia Juergens-Willebrandt' --mostly dealt with problems of hematology, we worked at first on such problems.
"While working together and also through our friendly relations, which lasted for several years until 1941 -- when I was drafted for military service - I learned to esteem Dr. Schaeffer as an excellent, judicious, diligent and honest scientist with a knowledge of chemistry and physiology far exceeding the usual medical level. In all his scientific research work his self criticism and honesty stood out prominently so that all the works published by him are products of the most serious scientific research.
"My reason for fostering my friendly relations with Dr. Schaefer, which by far exceeded the usual contact between two colleagues, was due in no small measure to. his high conception of scientific honesty and fairness and to his high esteem of the medical profession which I share also, a conception which surely prevented him, from a scientific as well as from a human point of view, from carrying out experiments on human beings which could have dangerous or even fatal results.
"My friendly relations toward Br. Schaefer were, moreover, influenced by a far reaching agreement in our political views.
"My own anti-nazi attitude is to be seen from the attached affidavit made by Mrs.
Berti Schneider, at present in Zuerich, Switzerland, at the welfare center for the victims of Facism, Hildesheim."
I need not read all this statement, it will be Exhibit No. 5, it is Document No. 4-A, English pages 9 to 11. German 29. I shall read it.
I shall continue to read Exhibit 4:
"In his frequent long conversations Dr. Schaefer often used drastic expressions against the prevailing system of that time and its leaders. I also confided to Dr. Schaefer that I was engaged to a half Jewess, the then Mrs Burgschat, now Mrs. Schneider. One may judge from this the extent of confidence I placed in Dr. Schaefer an d how convinced. I must have been of his political reliability when I told him a fact which would have cost me more than my position at that time.
What infuriated me most was that Dr. Schaefer, who had proved himself so outstanding a young physician interested in science, could not continue his career at the university, because he did. not belong to the NSDAP or to any of its organizations. However, Dr. Schaefer preferred to renounce a certain career at the university rather than bow to a system which he rejected as contrary to his political convictions.
Even after remonstrations by our mutual chief, Professor Jurgens, who greatly esteemed Dr. Schaefer and was unwilling to lose his service as a collaborator and who told him that he could not keep him if he did not join some organization, Dr. Schaefer remained true to his political convictions.
Dr. Schaefer was removed from the university as voluntary assistant because he did not belong to any of the party organizations. When the removal took place I do not exactly know. I know only that I was most indignant at the time about this incident as it showed that when appointments were made to scientific posts at the university political views and not scientific qualifications were decisive.
I may therefore maintain with a clear conscience that Dr. Schaefer was not a physician or man possessed of any Nazi ideology."
Then, I should like to offer Document N. 5, pages 12 to 15. This will be Exhibit 6. It is by Mrs. Emilia Rahenbrock, MarburgLahn. I shall not read the entire affidavit, it begins:
"I, Emilia Rahenbrock, Marburg-Lahn..... have known Dr. Konrad Schaefer since 1939. My husband introduced him to me. My husband knew him already in 1936 and his anti national socialist political attitude which he had held. Dr. Schaefer worked as an assistant in the Charite, Berlin. He had been compelled, so he told me, to give up his position because of his political attitude, particularly as he refused to join the Party. He described what happened in the following words: "I was called to the Professor of my Institute and was asked why I had not yet joined the Party. To my answer that this would not agree with my political point of view, he told me to fact the consequences as I could not longer stay in the Institute."
When I met Dr. Schaefer at t hat time, he had a job as scientific collaborator with the Schering AG, Berlin. On the occasion of our frequent conversations Dr. Schaefer openly and without any restraint spoke against National Socialism and the government. We often listened to foreign broadcasts with him and Dr. Schaefer was always very interested in them. I gathered from his remarks that Dr. Schaefer was an outspoken anti-facist.
On 20 July 1944, Dr. Schaefer was with me in my Landsberg Warthe apartment. We had switched on the radio, and suddenly we heard the news about the attempt on Adolf Hitler. Assuming that the attempt had succeeded he was so overwhelmed with joy that he entirely forgot how dangerous the situation was. I remember that he said the following words "at last the bastard is dead". Unfortunately we were informed soon afterwards that Adolf Hitler was still alive.
Dr. Schaefer was bitterly disappointed by this news and he openly expressed his opinion about this. The chances of success of this attempt were discussed again."
I continue after two paragraphs:
"Dr. Schaefer was completely against all militarism in the medical field. While he was called up he hardly ever wore uniform, at least I hardly ever saw him in it. He was strongly against the use of specialist physicians as troop physicians and the use of practical physicians as specialist physicians, respectively, as because of t heir lack of experience they did not meet the requitements of their duties. According to all my observations and experiences, I must say that Dr. Schaefer had an ethical conception of the medical profession, i.e., to be a helper of his fellow men.
"Dr. Schaefer remarked that Germany would never win the war.
"On occasional visits Dr. Schaefer imitated Adolf Hitler perfectly for general amusement. He pulled part of his hair over his face and imitated his method of speech, his voice and gestures and made Hitler incredibly ridiculous."
The document continues under the same Exhibit No. 6, it reads as follows:
17 February, 1947.
"I, Emilia Rahenbrock, "I would like to add the following to my statement of 30 January 1947:
"On the occasion of a conversation referring to an announcement circulated by the then chief physician, Dr. Conti, I asked Dr. Schaefer whether he and his wife would not have to visit this organization too, as the requested stated. Dr. Schafer replied that this 'association of idiots' would not be visited by any decent physician and certainly not by him and his wife."
The next document No. 6, will be Exhibit 7, oh page 16, by Johannes Nowak, Hamburg:
"I have known Dr. Konrad Schaefer for many years. I met him one day in Berlin at the bookshop of Ernst Doenig through a mutual friend, Mrs.
Erika Koenig. Dr. Schaefer at that time was juniorphysician in the Luftwaffe; in the ensuing conversation he expressed his hatred and antipathy for the Nazi regime. After that I frequently met Dr. Schaefer at the bookshop and at other meetings he expressed his great disgust about the regime, especially a bout the treatment of Russian prisoners of war and Jews and the drafting of juveniles and women into the armed services, so that I had to warn him, since h e was wearing uniform, not to be so careless as to endanger both of us.
I must emphasize that neither Dr. Schaefer nor Mrs. Koenig know that I was not of aryan descent so that he could not have talked against the Nazis so adversely just to please me. Our common hatred for the dictatorship Led to a genuine friendship and after I had to flee from Berlin I met Dr. Schaefer here in Hamburg where he expressed his happiness about the end and told me that now at last he could work as a free man and live for his research work. Dr. Schaefer is a great idealist who respects human like above everything and whose views are known to me as definitely antinazi."
English Document No. 7 German #27 will be Exhibit No. 8, pages 17 and 18, page 65-66 of the German "Erwin Schulz, Berlin-Gatow.
"I have known Dr. Schaefer since 1941 and frequently met him as I was in charge of and looked after his sailing boat. Since I frequently spoke with Dr. Schaefer about the Hitler regime and the National Socialist ideology, I can but say Dr. Schaefer could not possibly have thought and acted along Nazi lines. He also knew that I listened together with foreign civil workers to English news broadcasts; he warned me to be careful as it might cost me my head. During his leave we listened together to foreign broadcasts. I was never able to detect Nazi tendencies during the ensuing discussions. I looked up Dr. Schaefer when I was drafted into the Navy at the end of 1944 to ask for his advice. He gave me the following instructions as to how to conduct myself. I should wait until the day of my drafting, then call a doctor and pretend that I was suffering from ischias. Dr. Schaefer explained to me exactly how I should act. With his help I was able to succeed in this deception so that I was released from military duty. If necessary, I can produce witnesses in this matter, Mrs. Dr. Glatzel, Spandau, Jaczowweg, Amtsarzt, Dr. Franzmeier, Spandau, as well as Mr. Franz Pycha, Spandau, Weinmeisterhorn, The latter can also testify to our listening to news broadcasts.
"My political feelings are well known and established facts in the district in which I live, that I thought and acted as a Socialist before and during the Nazi period. Proof: my absolute opposition to military duty, my refusal of war work and my membership in the Legion for Human Rights."
Document 8, page 19, will be Exhibit No. 9. It comes from Erich Lehmann, chemist, Hannover-Herrenhausen. I shall read many excerpts.
"I have known Dr. med. Konrad SCHAEFER for about 10 years. He had been recommended to me in professional circles as being well acquainted with pharmacology and as being an important scientific chemist.
At that time I was working on the Enzyme preparations which had just been introduced, and I was in need of an absolutely reliable medical man with the above-mentioned reputation to assist me with control experiments.
"In the many years during which I was permitted to work together with Dr. SCHAEFER, the specialized knowledge mentioned above was proved to the full. Our scientific work led to a very close friendship, so that I was able to gain a deep insight into his human and political views.
"I personally have been a Socialist for many years. I subscribed to this conviction even before the first World War, and I am a member of the German Social-Democratic Party. Owing to my political views I was violently opposed to the Nazis from the very beginning. During the World War of 1914/18 I served on the Western Front from the start until I was seriously wounded in the fall of 1917, and I was a confirmed pacifist when returning to my civilian occupation. I therefore was delighted to find in Dr. SCHAEFER a man who shared my views and who, in full agreement with me, disapproved of National Socialism and all it stood for. We agreed just as much on the subject of war and its consequences. SCHAEFER was a dyed-in-the wool pacifist. I do not think that until then SCHAEFER had ever known hatred; but he hated National Socialism with an unbelievably strong hatred and used to damn the system to hell.
"We often used to discuss those outrageous terrorist and dictatorial measures. At such times SCHAEFER used to express himself in the most violent terms against the despots. How often did we air the question, whether it would not be possible somehow to eliminate these bandits, in spite of every things.
"Dr. SCHAEFER consistently rejected the Nazi racial theory. When SCHAEFER was called into the army at some later date we were separated for a short time; however, Schaefer often wrote and told me about his life with the "Prussians". I could tell from the thing she wrote how difficult it was for him to adjust himself to the blind Prussian discipline.
When Schaefer then was ordered back to Berlin, it always pleased me to see that he never wore uniform when in my company. He hated the army and the uniform as much as he hated National Socialism."
I skip the next two paragraphs.
"Publications by Jewish authors, even works which contained only brief references to such, were banned by the NSDAP starting from 1939. I had, at that time, to run through our whole archive in Berlin in order to sort out and dispose of all Jewish works on the subjects of medicine, chemistry and pharmacology. There was not a journal or review which would accept such articles, even excerpts of them for publication."
In order to explain this testimony, I offer Document Schaefer 38 as 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding with this, the Court will be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. MARX: (Defense Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, I ask permission to make an explanation. The man called as an expert for professor Schroeder, Becker-Freyseng and Beiglboeck, professor Dr. Volhardt, from Frankfurt, who was approved by the Tribunal, has now arrived, professor Volhardt is a scholar and scientist of international repute. Therefore, what he has to say will be of general interest and perhaps it will be very decisive in deciding the outcome of this trial and the evaluation of these three defendants. Professor Vollhardt has only a little time at his disposal He is the Director of the University Clinic for Internal Medicine of the University of Frankfurt and must return on Wednesday to attend a scientific conference. I therefore ask the Tribunal to permit Professor Vollhardt to testify tomorrow morning at the beginning of the session so that he can testify as an export.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the prosecution any objection?
MR. HARDY: The prosecution has no objection, Your Honor, but the prosecution would like to know substantially what this witness is going to testify to. Whether it will be the sea water experiments or other experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel advise the prosecution as to the specific matters of the proposed witness's testimony?
DR. MARX: Mr. President, this expert will testify for us primarily regarding the sea water experiments. Perhaps, in addition, he will make a general statement regarding experiments on human beings, but that is not absolutely necessary and, in the main, he will confine himself to the points regarding sea water experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Will defense counsel, as soon as possible, furnish a statement of the witness. The usual written statement that the witness will be called?
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I don't believe that that is expedient since the expert will testify here before the Tribunal. Questions are to be asked of this expert...
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting); I referred simply to the usual typewritten statement that such-and-such a witness will be called for certain defendants.
DR. MARX: We applied through the Secretary-General and the witness has been approved for Schroeder, BeckerFreyseng and, so far as I know, for Dr. Steinbauer for Dr. Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be satisfactory. The witness will be heard tomorrow morning at the opening of the Tribunal, but this usual form that the witness will be called at such a time should be filed for the records of the Tribunal. Counsel will have no difficulty in procuring that form.
DR. MARX: Very well, Your Honor.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I am advised and believe that the expert witness to be called tomorrow will testify from original German documents or, at least, alleged original documents, concerning the sea water experiments. That is to say the defendant Beiglboeck has, in his possession, original charts and records concerning the experiments which he carried out in Dachau. If the witness is to testify concerning those original records and is to base his testimony upon them, I think that they will have to be introduced into evidence tomorrow so that ho will testify concerning those documents.
The prosecution has not received any copies of those original documents. I think we're entitled to them in order to be able to formulate our own questions to put to the witness and to permit our experts to study the originals. We're also entitled to twenty-four hours' notice on any documents which are to be submitted. I therefore request that, if it is true that this expert is to base his testimony upon alleged clinical reports prepared by Beiglboeck at Dachau, that they be produced today in their original form and presented to the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Any original documents concerning which the witness will testify should be filed in the office of the Secretary General where they may be examined by counsel of the prosecution. If copies are available, copies should be furnished the prosecution today, but if copies are not available, the original documents should be filed in the office of the Secretary General.
DR. STEINBAUER: (Defense counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): Mr. President, at great trouble to myself, I have found the originals of the records of these experiments and on the 20th of January I showed them to the expert of the prosecution, Dr. Alexander, in the presence of an American professor who was a specialist in this field, Professor Ivy, and both these men have returned the documents to me. There upon, I made them available to Professor Volhardt and I hope he will return them to mo at noon and, at that time, I shall turn them over to the Secretary General. Thus, it will be possible to show them to the prosecution. However, it is impossible for me to make copies of these because a groat many of them are just notes, partly charts and graphs and such things which it is technically impossible to reproduce.
However, as I said the experts for the prosecution have already seen those documents.
MR. McHANEY: Well, of course, if the documents are in the possession of the expert they can't be made available today and we will not interpose any objection to calling the witness tomorrow. But, at the same time, we will require that we be furnished copies, which can be photostated very simply, for future Study. I do not think it is true that we have seen all the originals of these documents. I am advised that Dr. Steinbauer even has the names of the people who were subjected to these experiments, yet I find no reflection of those documents in the document books so far submitted for the defendant Beiglboeck and, of course, it is quite important for the prosecution to have that information.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck stated that these documents might be available to him at noon today and if they are, he will file them with the office for the Secretary General whore they may be examined by the prosecution.
Counsel for the defendant Schaefer may proceed.
Just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to address counsel for defendant Beigelbock. It was the intention of the Tribunal to instruct counsel that all of these documents, whatever they are, as soon as they arrive should be filed with the office of the Secretary General to be available to the Prosecution. That refers to all the available documents. Does counsel understand that?
DR. STEINBAUER: A part of these documents are already included in my document books Nos. 2 and 2, which will be put in evidence when the Beigelbock case comes up.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. these documents that are available in Beigelbock's document book need not be filed in the Office of the Secretary General. They are already there.
DR. STEINBAUER: However, it is not necessary, for instance, in order to understand this whole matter for me to put in the names of the experimental subjects. It is quite enough for me to put in the numbers, However, we have nothing to conceal and nothing to hide. It is not necessary that the names of these unfortunate persons, who perhaps are still alive, should be made public here so that they are available to the press. I was a decent human being, feel myself obligated in the way in which the sterilized Polish subjects were protected from unpleasant publicity, I feel that the names of these people also should be kept from being made public. But if the Tribunal wishes I'll submit the list.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no comparison between these experiments and such experiments as those that were conducted by way of sterilization. If the proposed witness is to testify from documents containing the names of witnesses, then those documents should be filed in the office of the Secretary General with the others. If the subjects were not harmed by these experiments then there can he no harm to them if their names ere mentioned from the witness stand and nothing will be lost with a few hours delay in making these names available.